Why I hate the government

Just last week, I saw a beggar that was a fifty something, clean cut white guy who on “breaks” would whip out his cell phone and make calls…Bhahah

In the brief time I watched him, someone did give him money so begging may be a more lucrative occupation than one would imagine.

At least his marketing scheme was well conceived as he just had a hastily thrown together cardboard sign. Nothing like the thinly veiled ploy I once saw where a beggar stood in front of a gas station holding a 2.5 gallon polypropylene gas container with his pocket liners pulled out. Um, yah, right…this guy had surrounded himself with all the comforts of home and the container was intensely oxidized from spending so much time in the California sun serving as a prop - “You’re not fooling anyone you know”.

There was an article somewhere, in which a reporter spent a year begging, and made something like $45k tax free. I wish i could find it.

You're too young to hate the gov't. Wait till they take a little more than a third of your money off the top, then come back two years later and say we re checked our math and we need a few more bucks by tuesday.

As far as the phone I talked to a couple people that have them. They are cheap nothing phones and you pay as you go except 911. Most of the people I talked to had an angry ex or are elderly and have some med problems where having a phone handy is a good thing.

In Vegas, a Panhandler could make anywhere from $40-100k...

I've seen a "homeless" couple that shows up at our local mall in a taxi carrying old backpacks. They pull out shabby coats and cardboard begging signs to set up shop. I call the cops on them every friggin time I see them.

Wally wrote: You're too young to hate the gov't. Wait till they take a little more than a third of your money off the top, then come back two years later and say we re checked our math and we need a few more bucks by tuesday. As far as the phone I talked to a couple people that have them. They are cheap nothing phones and you pay as you go except 911. Most of the people I talked to had an angry ex or are elderly and have some med problems where having a phone handy is a good thing.

Any cell phone will dial 911 without a plan or minutes. All you need is a phone with a battery.

Alot of these people are on food stamps in govt housing. They can't really be spending money on a phone and battery so they are given one.

I know of several placesthat donate used phones to those in need.

...and nobody has any trouble with that. In fact we donated our old phones to one. That's a far cry from getting free or even heavily discounted service subsidized by tax dollars.

Same with us. All my old phones were donated.

Wally wrote: Alot of these people are on food stamps in govt housing. They can't really be spending money on a phone and battery so they are given one.

There are organizations that take old cell phones from when people upgrade and the like and distribute them to people who would need to have an emergency 911 phone only.

Funny thing is I thought about the whole government tracking GPS with these phones thing when I first read the article.

This last weekend I was visiting some family friends, an older couple that is almost like another set of grandparents. We were sitting in the living room watching the morning news and of course politics came up and some of the recent changes the government has been making. The old guy who is quite soft spoken a very easy going country guy looks over to me and says the country is going to hell and has been for a long time. He basically said it was time for another revolution to rebuild the country, otherwise we are looking at having a complete collapse. He said just about everyone in the government needs to be replaced and regulations placed to keep the same thing from happening again. I honestly could not believe I was hearing this from him, though I must admit I have thought the same thing at times.

Snowdoggie wrote: What really gets me about being expected to compete 'globally' is that most people who get college degrees here are either rich, work nights and weekends to pay tuition or end up saddled with student loans. In other countries, once you pass an entrance exam the government pays your tuition. How can we compete against this? The guy in the other country has more time to study and can take a lower salary without student loans to pay off, costing his company less money. The answer is, we can't compete.

Someone is paying for the education somehow. I dont think it necesarily follows that foreign businesses are more competative because the government more heavily subsidizes education.

I think whats important is total cost of education, quality, and availability of education(to people from all social classes).

914Driver wrote: See Michelle Obama working a food pantry for homeless people? One of the patrons whips out his cell phone to take her picture. Anything wrong with that picture?

No sir, there is not a god damned thing wrong with that picture. You want this guy to get a job and get himself off the street, right? Without (presumably) a fixed address, he definitely needs a reliable way to communicate with other people to get himself back on his feet. A prepaid cellphone is what, 30 bucks? Maybe a relative got it for him so they can keep in touch? If anything I'd say the homeless guy who hasn't spent a relatively small amount of money on a device that will be somewhat essential to him in his quest to improve his situation in life probably isn't trying hard enough.

I really don't get this (seemingly common) attitude that implies that any public charity should entail some sort of punishment for the mortal sin of being poor. Is the idea that people will just get so embarrassed to be seen in a soup line or sleeping on a park bench that one day they'll just up and decide not to be poor anymore? Or, in a more realistic scenario, kill themselves? I honestly can't understand the goal of such sentiment.

I don't mean to project anything on you that you didn't mean, 914, but that argument really presses my buttons, and it wouldn't be the first time I have heard someone reference that photo in a manner that assumes we should be outraged that one of those no-good dirty homeless people is somehow allowed to have a real-person tool like a cell phone.

Charity = good Charity enforced by the government = stupid, socialist, unconstitutional

That's the difference. I don't care how much sense you see in giving a homeless guy a phone, it's socialist and unconstitutional and you clearly expect everyone, even those whom disagree, to pay for it, and other ideas like it. Not cool.

Josh wrote:

914Driver wrote: See Michelle Obama working a food pantry for homeless people? One of the patrons whips out his cell phone to take her picture. Anything wrong with that picture?

No sir, there is not a god damned thing wrong with that picture. You want this guy to get a job and get himself off the street, right? Without (presumably) a fixed address, he definitely needs a reliable way to communicate with other people to get himself back on his feet. A prepaid cellphone is what, 30 bucks? Maybe a relative got it for him so they can keep in touch? If anything I'd say the homeless guy who hasn't spent a relatively small amount of money on a device that will be somewhat essential to him in his quest to improve his situation in life probably isn't trying hard enough. I really don't get this (seemingly common) attitude that implies that any public charity should entail some sort of punishment for the mortal sin of being poor. Is the idea that people will just get so embarrassed to be seen in a soup line or sleeping on a park bench that one day they'll just up and decide not to be poor anymore? Or, in a more realistic scenario, kill themselves? I honestly can't understand the goal of such sentiment. I don't mean to project anything on you that you didn't mean, 914, but that argument really presses my buttons, and it wouldn't be the first time I have heard someone reference that photo in a manner that assumes we should be outraged that one of those no-good dirty homeless people is somehow allowed to have a real-person tool like a cell phone.

More detailed information about the program:

I consider this site left leaning: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

I consider this site right leaning: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/28/chain-email/chain-e-mail-claims-obama-handing-out-free-cell-ph/

Snowdoggie wrote: The problem with revolution is that once you kick the SOBs from the last government out, you actually have to run things and face the same problems the last government had.

Actually it just would not work, I think, until there was a complete collapse in this country. It seems that no one really cares what happens to this country anymore. There is plenty of talk and very little action from most people. Also lets face it the ability to re-unite this country would take a level of dedication that 99.9% of the population would not offer. Everyone is more concerned with themselves and how things will immediately effect them instead of looking at the big picture. People seem to have a very narrow view on life and most have no clue what is actually happening around them.

Anyway yes it would be difficult facing the problems of the past and trying to find a way to make things work. However I think getting there would be much harder.

tuna55 wrote: Charity = good Charity enforced by the government = stupid, socialist, unconstitutional That's the difference. I don't care how much sense you see in giving a homeless guy a phone, it's socialist and unconstitutional and you clearly expect everyone, even those whom disagree, to pay for it, and other ideas like it. Not cool.

Giving a dude a phone is unconstitutional?

I love how you also define anything thats socialist as being stupid. Lets go ahead and close public schools. They are socialist, unconstitutional, and therefor stupid.

You may want to lighten up on the Kool-aid.

I actually agree that the federal government should not run schools, they are unconstitutional as well. Have you read the constitution? It's pretty short - give it a go. Yes, the federal government giving a non-employee dude a phone is unconstitutional.

I don't think they make a constitution flavored kool-aid.

tuna55 wrote: I actually agree that the federal government should not run schools

Im glad your not in charge of national policy making decisions. You would destroy this country far more efficently than the people currently in charge.

The Constitution did have a number of articles addressing cellular phones, so it seems to be an open and shut case against the right to own and bear them.

I have some neighbors who have aquired some of these freebie phones, and they tell me that they "only" get 68 minutes per month on them. They are rollover minutes, so if they can go awhile without using them, they end up with quite a few.

Me? I'll just forego the free phone, and hold onto my .357 and 12 guage...

Not unconstitutional- Article 1, section 8-

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

It does say general Welfare, which is up to Congress to interpret.

You may trying reading yourself.

Eric

lol

The "general welfare" statement is broadly disputed by both sides. Modern day congress obviously agrees with you all, but I side with folks that actually were around when the thing was written, like Jefferson and Madison.

I would argue that the constitution itself is quite anti-federalist in nature, in general. The term 'welfare', it would follow, doesn't mean "provide for whatever the heck congress thinks you might want".

GlennS wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I actually agree that the federal government should not run schools

Im glad your not in charge of national policy making decisions. You would destroy this country far more efficently than the people currently in charge.

REally? You sure? They seem to be doing a pretty efficient job. Have you seen the stupidity that is the NCLB act? Trust me when I say it's doing more harm than good at this point. Politicians in Washington have no clue how to run a school in Poduck, USA. Shoot, most can't balance their own check book.

NYG95GA wrote: The Constitution did have a number of articles addressing cellular phones, so it seems to be an open and shut case against the right to own and bear them.

Let's keep in mind that constitution is a list of things that the government can do. Literally, if it isn't on the list, it can't be done by the federal government. The 10th amendment explicitly states that.